But California’s brief in Fisher isn’t even that honest. It only touts the benefits of “diversity” in a vaccuum. It fails to consider the costs that accompany racial preferences. In other words, California argues that “diversity” is better than homogeneity. It does not argue that racial preferences are necessary to acheive diversity. For good reason too — since 1996, California universities have increased the racial and ethnic diversity of their universities without considering the race and ethnicity of student applicants.

The absolute stunner in California’s brief, however, comes during its final argument. California touts the “rich diversity” of its elected officials — in particular the California Supreme Court. But because California has “eschew[ed] use of race-conscious admission standards,” it has had to rely on the race-conscious admissions policies of private universities. In support of this argument, California notes that Justices Kennard, Chin, Liu, and Moreno all graduated from private law schools. What the brief fails to mention, however, is that each of those justices entered law school before 1996. That is, before California “eschew[ed] use of race-conscious admissions standards.”